Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The "perpetual union" didn't exist after the Constitution was approved. The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin. Furthermore, the idea that you can't leave a club you have joined isn't supported by any theory of law. Only bootlicking statists make such claims.The immense difference is that all the states entered voluntarily into the Perpetual Union. The attempt to destroy that was treasonous, and was justly put down.That was the case.
If you read documents from the War of Independence, you quickly discover that a core principle of the American Patriots was that the colonies had a natural right to separate from England and that England was violating natural law and committing aggression by trying to force the colonies to remain under British control.
The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation
Even without Davis's foolish--and bloodless--bombardment of Fort Sumter, the Radical Republicans were determined to pick a fight with the Confederacy. There is good evidence that Lincoln was doing all he dared to *avoid* an armed showdown, but Davis made this impossible with his attack on Sumter.
I have seen theories like yours proposed hundreds of times in this forum. They are not just wrong, they are absurd. There is no theory of law that supports them. Not national law, nor international law.
You believe in a fantasy. You're a fool.
Texas v. White | law case
I've already addressed this fraudulent case. At the time it was made, the court was appointed with Lincoln appointed hacks. It was also based on a number of outright lies, like the claim that at the time Texas was a state of the union. A legal state of the union has representation in the House and the Senate. Texas had none at the time.
The "perpetual union" didn't exist after the Constitution was approved. The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin. Furthermore, the idea that you can't leave a club you have joined isn't supported by any theory of law. Only bootlicking statists make such claims.The immense difference is that all the states entered voluntarily into the Perpetual Union. The attempt to destroy that was treasonous, and was justly put down.If you read documents from the War of Independence, you quickly discover that a core principle of the American Patriots was that the colonies had a natural right to separate from England and that England was violating natural law and committing aggression by trying to force the colonies to remain under British control.
The American Revolution and the Right of Peaceful Separation
Even without Davis's foolish--and bloodless--bombardment of Fort Sumter, the Radical Republicans were determined to pick a fight with the Confederacy. There is good evidence that Lincoln was doing all he dared to *avoid* an armed showdown, but Davis made this impossible with his attack on Sumter.
I have seen theories like yours proposed hundreds of times in this forum. They are not just wrong, they are absurd. There is no theory of law that supports them. Not national law, nor international law.
You believe in a fantasy. You're a fool.
Texas v. White | law case
I've already addressed this fraudulent case. At the time it was made, the court was appointed with Lincoln appointed hacks. It was also based on a number of outright lies, like the claim that at the time Texas was a state of the union. A legal state of the union has representation in the House and the Senate. Texas had none at the time.
It has already been pointed out that the legal views of justices of the Supreme Court are infinitely more weighty and legitimate than the bitter, uneducated mewling of some brainless scumbag like you on the internet.
Boy, the slave industry would have been busier than ever then, not growing cotton but producing new slaves.No, Lincoln demanded 850,000 dead. You are right about one thing, if Lincoln only wanted to end slavery, he could have done it without a single life being lost. The cost of buying all the slaves would have been cheaper than the cost of the war.Most countries gave up slavery without a fussMurdering 850,000 people is not a justifiable means to end slavery.The basis for keeping slaves is that the might to do so is present. Any means to end slavery is as justifiable as slavery itself.
We demanded 600,000 dead
How would they produce new slaves when they didn't own any?Boy, the slave industry would have been busier than ever then, not growing cotton but producing new slaves.No, Lincoln demanded 850,000 dead. You are right about one thing, if Lincoln only wanted to end slavery, he could have done it without a single life being lost. The cost of buying all the slaves would have been cheaper than the cost of the war.Most countries gave up slavery without a fussMurdering 850,000 people is not a justifiable means to end slavery.The basis for keeping slaves is that the might to do so is present. Any means to end slavery is as justifiable as slavery itself.
We demanded 600,000 dead
Suppose a slave owner didn't want to sell?How would they produce new slaves when they didn't own any?Boy, the slave industry would have been busier than ever then, not growing cotton but producing new slaves.No, Lincoln demanded 850,000 dead. You are right about one thing, if Lincoln only wanted to end slavery, he could have done it without a single life being lost. The cost of buying all the slaves would have been cheaper than the cost of the war.Most countries gave up slavery without a fussMurdering 850,000 people is not a justifiable means to end slavery.The basis for keeping slaves is that the might to do so is present. Any means to end slavery is as justifiable as slavery itself.
We demanded 600,000 dead
Eminent domain. He would be forced to sell. That's actually in the Constitution, unlike invading Virginia.Suppose a slave owner didn't want to sell?How would they produce new slaves when they didn't own any?Boy, the slave industry would have been busier than ever then, not growing cotton but producing new slaves.No, Lincoln demanded 850,000 dead. You are right about one thing, if Lincoln only wanted to end slavery, he could have done it without a single life being lost. The cost of buying all the slaves would have been cheaper than the cost of the war.Most countries gave up slavery without a fussMurdering 850,000 people is not a justifiable means to end slavery.
We demanded 600,000 dead
The "perpetual union" didn't exist after the Constitution was approved. The Articles of Confederation were thrown into the waste bin. Furthermore, the idea that you can't leave a club you have joined isn't supported by any theory of law. Only bootlicking statists make such claims.The immense difference is that all the states entered voluntarily into the Perpetual Union. The attempt to destroy that was treasonous, and was justly put down.
I have seen theories like yours proposed hundreds of times in this forum. They are not just wrong, they are absurd. There is no theory of law that supports them. Not national law, nor international law.
You believe in a fantasy. You're a fool.
Texas v. White | law case
I've already addressed this fraudulent case. At the time it was made, the court was appointed with Lincoln appointed hacks. It was also based on a number of outright lies, like the claim that at the time Texas was a state of the union. A legal state of the union has representation in the House and the Senate. Texas had none at the time.
It has already been pointed out that the legal views of justices of the Supreme Court are infinitely more weighty and legitimate than the bitter, uneducated mewling of some brainless scumbag like you on the internet.
- Appeal to authority - a logical fallacy
- It doesn't matter what their credentials are. The fact is they lied.
Wrong, turd, slavery wasn't a crime then. The South didn't commit treason. Abraham Lincoln did. He made war on member states of the Union.The only really relative evidence in the whole matter is that slavery is a crime needing extirpation. That the South resorted to treason in order to preserve it only ads to the crime. The ends, maintaining slavery, did not justify any means at all.
Right. Throwing innocent Americans into concentration camps and slaughtering 850,000 more was not worse than slavery.Think what one will of Lincoln, nothing he did was worse than what the institution of slavery inflicted on our fellow humans.
And you have zero knowledge of history...LOL~Wrong, turd, slavery wasn't a crime then. The South didn't commit treason. Abraham Lincoln did. He made war on member states of the Union.The only really relative evidence in the whole matter is that slavery is a crime needing extirpation. That the South resorted to treason in order to preserve it only ads to the crime. The ends, maintaining slavery, did not justify any means at all.
Bottom line: You're a sleazy lying piece of shit.
Think what one will of Lincoln, nothing he did was worse than what the institution of slavery inflicted on our fellow humans.
.... He made war on member states of the Union.
......
And, you can say that again.... If it was part of America, then Lincoln committed treason by making war on "the United States" (plural).Union troops were trespassing on the territory of SC, moron. If foreigners refuse to leave your country, then they deserve to be fired on.It's irrefutable that he started it. ...
Wannabe reb stupidity. The traitors fired on Fort Sumter. Your personal hatred for the United States of America does not change the facts.
American troops in America, you stupid traitor.
Wrong again.
Right. Throwing innocent Americans into concentration camps and slaughtering 850,000 .....Think what one will of Lincoln, nothing he did was worse than what the institution of slavery inflicted on our fellow humans.
If that's the case, then Lincoln was trespassing on the territory of a sovereign country and sent warships through the territorial waters of a sovereign country. Both are acts of war. The South didn't declare war. South Carolina simply kicked trespassers out of their country. You got one thing right: there was no statute against slavery. It was expressly legal. What you think about it is irrelevant. Lincoln had no legal authority to invade Virginia or resupply Ft Sumpter, period.And you have zero knowledge of history...LOL~Wrong, turd, slavery wasn't a crime then. The South didn't commit treason. Abraham Lincoln did. He made war on member states of the Union.The only really relative evidence in the whole matter is that slavery is a crime needing extirpation. That the South resorted to treason in order to preserve it only ads to the crime. The ends, maintaining slavery, did not justify any means at all.
Bottom line: You're a sleazy lying piece of shit.
When Abe made war...the Southern States had already succeeded..and thus, were no longer members of the United States..they were the Confederacy.
The South started the war--we, the United States of America..finished it.
Slavery was a crime against humanity..that there was no statute against it...is irrelevant. the South, especially the deep South..were NEVER going to give up their slaves..hell, it took another hundred years to actually free their descendants from Jim Crow!
The only "crime" they committed was criticizing Lincoln and his policies. They were never tried, nor even charged with a crime. They weren't criminals of any kind. Most of them weren't even Southerners, you fucking dumbass.Right. Throwing innocent Americans into concentration camps and slaughtering 850,000 .....Think what one will of Lincoln, nothing he did was worse than what the institution of slavery inflicted on our fellow humans.
That did not happen. Criminals incarcerated for committing crimes are not "concentration camps," and criminals killed in the course of committing crime are not "slaughtered," they are getting what they deserve.
Totally wrong, of course..... He made war on member states of the Union.
......
Wrong. The 'confederate' traitors made war. The vile criminals were put down like the dogs they were. Apologists today for the evil of that time are lower than dogs and deserve no less.
